What's new

LCH flew at Siachen with decent payload: HAL Chief

im sure they used manpads to shoot down a mig 21,27 during kargil?
A MiG-21 and Mi-17 (the latter part of a 4 ship mission and the only one without a self defence suite fitted) were shot down but the MiG-27 crashed due to an engine flame out caused by the engine being starved of O2 by the firing of rockets at such heights.

but the zulus they orders are optimised for high altitude assaults, the the hell fire missiles they chose are for leveling houses and tunnels(supported its application on the "wot"), but they can be fitted with aim-9 wvraam's and im not sure about stingers as they are too close range. and the hell fire.and the z10's are being fitted with wz-16 engines, but as they say " no money no honey ". i remember having a very long discussion regarding this.

Perhaps but the numbers the PA/PAF will be able to employ makes the threat from them almost negligable and the LCH was designed specifically to operate (and fight) in the mountains.
 
A MiG-21 and Mi-17 (the latter part of a 4 ship mission and the only one without a self defence suite fitted) were shot down but the MiG-27 crashed due to an engine flame out caused by the engine being starved of O2 by the firing of rockets at such heights.
.
ooo now you sparked my interests,how about the shakti engine? how is its compressor able to work in such high altitude? and also it precompressor stages? if the issue is solved by more power wont this mean more downtime/maintainance as the hot section will have to handle more preasure from the combustion chamber and more servicing to the compressor blades? the normal shakti being 1384hp and the one being on the lch 1430hp. so i can foresee possible high down times.
 
ooo now you sparked my interests,how about the shakti engine? how is its compressor able to work in such high altitude? and also it precompressor stages? if the issue is solved by more power wont this mean more downtime/maintainance as the hot section will have to handle more preasure from the combustion chamber and more servicing to the compressor blades? the normal shakti being 1384hp and the one being on the lch 1430hp. so i can foresee possible high down times.
You're asking the wrong guy here my friend, perhaps @PARIKRAMA @anant_s @Water Car Engineer @MilSpec @knight11 @Picdelamirand-oil @Taygibay can help.
 
ooo now you sparked my interests,how about the shakti engine? how is its compressor able to work in such high altitude? and also it precompressor stages? if the issue is solved by more power wont this mean more downtime/maintainance as the hot section will have to handle more preasure from the combustion chamber and more servicing to the compressor blades? the normal shakti being 1384hp and the one being on the lch 1430hp. so i can foresee possible high down times.

That is not how, barometric pressure variations are handled in a Turbo shaft engine, specifically in ALH/LCH/Chetaah/Chetal. The power output of your system depends on the compression ratio, which is a function of the suction pressure and discharge pressure at each compression stage, Increasing power has lesser effect but more the power curve which can be achieved by preheating, suction manifold, variable pressure valve at suction port or even porting ducts from the combustion chamber with a Step unloader valve controlled by a solenoid. And that will not effect hot weather operations as validated by most systems in IAF rotary wing being tested at both high altitude low temp as well as dry and hot weather operations.
regards
 
ooo now you sparked my interests,how about the shakti engine? how is its compressor able to work in such high altitude? and also it precompressor stages? if the issue is solved by more power wont this mean more downtime/maintainance as the hot section will have to handle more preasure from the combustion chamber and more servicing to the compressor blades? the normal shakti being 1384hp and the one being on the lch 1430hp. so i can foresee possible high down times.

You're asking the wrong guy here my friend, perhaps

The low peak altitude of Helicopters (as compared to fixed wing aircraft) isn't typically due to performance issues of the engines at high altitudes. The helicopter engines, it must be understood, are basically modeled on the ones affixed to the fixed wing aircraft, which are adequate to cruise at 30,000 ft. It is another matter that the altitude for start-up is important for different reasons and is not to be conflated with this.

The limiting factor wrt altitude for helicopters is (more often than not) the rotor lift capacity, which declines progressively with altitude due to reduced air density. Most helicopters level out at around 15-16,000 ft. when the lift generated by the helicopter rotors becomes less than the weight of the helicopter body. The analogue for fixed wing aircraft is the Thrust/Weight ratio. If T/W>1, the aircraft can climb straight up' if T/W<1, gravity would drag the aircraft down.
 
400 kg means around 8 Namica ATGMs. Sweet. :enjoy:
Is this 400 mark is excluded pilots weight.

Just curious !!!! What we are planning with ATGMs at THAT height ;)

I think that payload might be the rocket pods but who knows
Atgms can be used against hardened bunkers,but only question is weather helinas iir seeker works flawlessly in that biting cold weather.
 
Atgms can be used against hardened bunkers,but only question is weather helinas iir seeker works flawlessly in that biting cold weather.
Wont IR seekers more effective in cold to identify heat? I think it is difficult for the IR in desert .
 
Is this 400 mark is excluded pilots weight.
Of course, the term "payload" would never be applied to include the weight of the pilots.

Atgms can be used against hardened bunkers,but only question is weather helinas iir seeker works flawlessly in that biting cold weather.

The issues with the NAMICA's seeker was in the heat of Rajashtan where it had previously been unable to perform optimially at seperating IR signatures from background heat levels. But this has been resolved now and the seeker should perform well in cold where IR signatures should be that much more contrasted.
 
Of course, the term "payload" would never be applied to include the weight of the pilots.



The issues with the NAMICA's seeker was in the heat of Rajashtan where it had previously been unable to perform optimially at seperating IR signatures from background heat levels. But this has been resolved now and the seeker should perform well in cold where IR signatures should be that much more contrasted.
Wont IR seekers more effective in cold to identify heat? I think it is difficult for the IR in desert .
Any censors will be having a lower and upper range for working temperature,I fear siachin temperature may fall bellow nags lower temperature range. I may be wrong also.
 
Any censors will be having a lower and upper range for working temperature,I fear siachin temperature may fall bellow nags lower temperature range. I may be wrong also.
Well let's see and not be overly pessimsitic. When the Nag's seeker failed in the high tempratures, DRDO went away and worked on it and came back and secured a succesful hit. I don't doubt that with enough support and freedom DRDO can serve the requirements of the armed forces.
 
Well let's see and not be overly pessimsitic. When the Nag's seeker failed in the high tempratures, DRDO went away and worked on it and came back and secured a succesful hit. I don't doubt that with enough support and freedom DRDO can serve the requirements of the armed forces.
Obviously DRDO can make wonders regarding missiles and radars. Regarding NAG,a millimetric radar guidece can also try.
 
Obviously DRDO can make wonders regarding missiles and radars. Regarding NAG,a millimetric radar guidece can also try.
I'm hoping that once the LCH is in service the DRDO will begin working on an in-house mast mounted MMR for it or HAL at least look at off the shelf systems for it (I'm sure Elbit have something that could work).
 
That is not how, barometric pressure variations are handled in a Turbo shaft engine, specifically in ALH/LCH/Chetaah/Chetal. The power output of your system depends on the compression ratio, which is a function of the suction pressure and discharge pressure at each compression stage, Increasing power has lesser effect but more the power curve which can be achieved by preheating, suction manifold, variable pressure valve at suction port or even porting ducts from the combustion chamber with a Step unloader valve controlled by a solenoid. And that will not effect hot weather operations as validated by most systems in IAF rotary wing being tested at both high altitude low temp as well as dry and hot weather operations.
regards
i think you missed my pont here im not talking about the stages after compression that discharge the presurebut in between that turns the shaft for the entire engine at a higher speed than the other stages. im talking about the compresser thats after the pre-compresser. the engine being a such a high altitude beyond what typical helicopter engine endure. your talking about 20000ft here. now i did some reading and i got an interesting quote here from an russain engineer who works for an aerospace engine manufacturer. he said: "if you want more power from an engine with out major rework or designing a new engine all you need to do is increase the fuel air mixture and adjust the combustion chamber". i could not find the source so to back it up i found this: exactly the same principle but differant scenario.
the quote below was taken from janes regarding the engine on the j-31:
One item most commonly mentioned is a new engine that would replace the Klimov/Sarkisov RD-93 engine that is installed in the J-31. The RD-93, a version of the Mikoyan MiG-29's RD-33, differs from the original by having an accessory pack that includes the engine's gearbox rotated from the top to the bottom of the engine installation.


Previous reports have stated that NPO Klimov in St Petersburg would develop an improved version of the engine to boost thrust levels by at least 10%, but that this would be a temporary solution until a Chinese-developed engine could be installed in the aircraft. But both Russian and Western propulsion specialists who are familiar with the performance of the RD-33 have told IHS Jane's that "turning up the wick" by trying to increase thrust levels is not the answer to these kinds of deficiencies.


"Just increasing the thrust of the engine is not a solution by itself," said one experienced Russian engine designer. "The hot sections of an engine - well, they are like the filament in a light bulb. You push more power through them and this only guarantees that they burn out sooner. Modern air force operational requirements and funding dynamics dictate that engines have a longer service life, not a shorter one, which is what just increasing thrust alone would do."

Propulsion, sensor issues cloud future of Shenyang's FC-31 | IHS Jane's 360

The low peak altitude of Helicopters (as compared to fixed wing aircraft) isn't typically due to performance issues of the engines at high altitudes. The helicopter engines, it must be understood, are basically modeled on the ones affixed to the fixed wing aircraft, which are adequate to cruise at 30,000 ft. It is another matter that the altitude for start-up is important for different reasons and is not to be conflated with this.

The limiting factor wrt altitude for helicopters is (more often than not) the rotor lift capacity, which declines progressively with altitude due to reduced air density. Most helicopters level out at around 15-16,000 ft. when the lift generated by the helicopter rotors becomes less than the weight of the helicopter body. The analogue for fixed wing aircraft is the Thrust/Weight ratio. If T/W>1, the aircraft can climb straight up' if T/W<1, gravity would drag the aircraft down.
well yes thats true and obivous. a good example being thw pw127 which can be on the mil-38 or the c295. but this is only for circumstances where larger helicopters need powerplants the size of aeroplane engines, (usually turbo props). ok getting side tracked here. lets go backto the shakti here. its basically an upgraded varient of the tm-333 that was used in very early dhruvs models. now the shakti engine is NOT a variant of a turboprop. its made specifically for helicopters and primarly the hal dhruv, now the engine on the lch is the same but more powerful. my arguement is that the more powerful engine is more likely to serviced more often than its counterpart thats not been "upgraded" in the dhruv. i highlighted part of your quote, yes thats a fact and further from the highlighted part iswhy the lch is quiet small as compared to other attack choppers.

to be quiet honest i would prefer the ka-226t instead, have a very lightweight module with arms for weapons and your done. heck a striped out 226t would do 7000 meters which is more than the lch! a 226t with a light moduel would be the same but would carry a much larger payload.
also note its counter rotating: which in hinds sight means a better recipe for a high altitude chopper as there is more surface area for the blades to push the thin air down.


 
to be quiet honest i would prefer the ka-226t instead, have a very lightweight module with arms for weapons and your done. heck a striped out 226t would do 7000 meters which is more than the lch! a 226t with a light moduel would be the same but would carry a much larger payload.
also note its counter rotating: which in hinds sight means a better recipe for a high altitude chopper as there is more surface area for the blades to push the thin air down.
Except the LCH is a dedicated attack helo with an optimised design (tandem seating). To get the Ka-226T to the same level of utility as the LCH you would have to add a lot of armour protection a chin mounted gun, optronics and a self defence suite. Afterall that I highly doubt the Ka-226T would outperform the LCH.

Comparing a small RSH to the LCH is rather silly IMHO sir.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom